Since the start of our country in the 1700’s, politics has always caused divisions among its people. Whether Democrat, Republican, or in the nineteenth century, Whig, opposing sentiments have led to either dissenters or supporters in expressing their opinions based on the current or even future government leaders. In this Bush Obama Morph, this expression of the author’s view on the Bush and Obama administrations carries on the old, American tradition. By using light gradients, the author is expressing his or her own opinion on the administrations.
From dark brown to light blue, the image freakishly morphs from a darker background with George W. Bush in the center to a lighter background with Barack Obama. During Obama’s campaign, his famous slogan was “Change We Can Believe In,” and it seems that the author believes that Obama will be the change the America is ready for and needs, thus illustrating his political views to his audience. Changing presidents from George W. Bush to Barack Obama was to many a positive progression into the future. While Bush’s presidency to many, was a failure, to the author, Obama will be the one to fix it and be the light needed by Americans, such like Lady Liberty calling to her tired, poor, and huddled immigrants. The background transforming from dark to light is a representation of a new America and change that Obama hoped to bring to his administration.
The First Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights protects American citizen’s right to freedom of speech, and whether a newspaper, image, or video, this author is exercising that right. His belief that Obama will be a new light for Americans is shown in this morph, from a gradient of the darkness of Bush’s presidency to the lightness and freedom of Obama’s.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
May I please have feedback on my writing, Professor Hodges?
Feedback provided, —DSH
Hey, Taylor. If you’ve read my feedback to your classmates, you may know that I write as I read so that you’re getting a real-time reaction from a reader as your argument unfolds.
P1. I like what I’m seeing so far, Taylor, except that your language needs an academic cleansing. For the time being, think of Milton Friedman as a model. He’s a very celebrated academic who managed to write vividly and compellingly about the invention of stone money without ever writing a sentence like this:
“Whether Democrat, Republican, or in the nineteenth century, Whig, opposing sentiments have led to either dissenters or supporters in expressing their opinions based on the current or even future government leaders.”
There’s nothing wrong with the concept here, Taylor, but I sense that you want to write an academic-sounding sentence. Such a desire can kill the best idea.
Your sentence actually says that sentiments can be Democrats, Republicans, or Whigs. You then claim that sentiments lead to dissent or support. You then claim that support causes expression. Why? Blame it on the “whether.” Once you decided to start with it, the whether launched you on a trajectory that eventually crashed into future government leaders.
What you mean is fine. Its:
I assume you mean the parties alone divide them since you haven’t named any “sentiments” except for party affiliation.
Do you see the value of first identifying your real subject—the Democrats and Republicans—and making them the subject of your sentence: Democrats (compared to yours: sentiments)?
Do you see the value of identifying the real action of your idea—the battle between the parties—and making it the verb of your sentence: have battled (compared to yours: have led to)?
Sometimes I blow my entire time budget on just one sentence, Taylor, but I try to provide quality instruction, however narrow the focus. Are you getting your money’s worth here?
Let me at least get to the end of the paragraph.
“In this Bush Obama Morph, this expression of the author’s view on the Bush and Obama administrations carries on the old, American tradition. By using light gradients, the author is expressing his or her own opinion on the administrations.”
Your subject/verb: expression/carries on
Your subject/verb: author/is expressing
Of the two, I prefer author/is expressing since it focuses our attention on a person’s activity. Could we possibly combine the two sentences to accomplish the same job in one? You don’t say what the author believes until the next paragraph, but the better tactic is to let readers in on the secret early but play out the details in the right order. So:
Maybe it’s a mistake to try to pack so much into that particular sentence (no draft is perfect; the next one is always better), but do you see the value of being more specific about the creator’s view?
If so, the first sentence of P2 could go straight to: Obama’s campaign slogan was “Change We Can Believe In.”
The assignment does not require you to rewrite, Taylor, but you certainly could if you wish, as a practice piece I would gladly review for you. The choice you make will tell me a lot about the student you are.
—Watch.
Helpful? I like feedback too.
Professor Hodges, I am a little unclear on the beginning of my feedback about that one sentence. Could you explain it a little more, please?
Feedback provided, —DSH
No, I don’t think I can, Taylor, until I know what you don’t understand. I’ve tried to explain several ways in which the sentence is unclear in its intentions and fails to be direct. Please tell me how you understand my feedback on one or more of the points I’ve made. That way I’ll know what kind of confusion I’ve caused you and can clarify. OK?